I first want to thank the co-sponsors of the Paid Sick Leave ordinance for the work they’ve done and the attention they’ve brought to this worthwhile issue.

After reviewing the original proposed ordinance and engaging in multiple meetings with stakeholders and advocates, it seems clear that despite much consensus on the value of a Paid Sick Leave policy, there is room for debate on the details we include and the complexity of the issue. While our typical process is to submit amendments to a provided ordinance, in this case, due to the complexity, I felt it more prudent to offer an alternative in total.

Attached is a substitute ordinance I will be proposing for first reading only at the council meeting on February 15 and can discuss at work session on Tuesday, Feb. 13.

In this new proposed ordinance, the language more closely matches the PSL policies offered in cities as pointed out to us by various advocates, thereby eliminating the need for more study. This includes micro-business exemption and tiered-accrual maximums. Additionally, this new ordinance:• Adds more specific provisions around reporting, appeal, and enforcement provisions that closely resemble those in the Minneapolis policy.• Creates more specific definitions around employer and employee to avoid the imposition of extra-jurisdictional enforcement which resulted in a negative judicial ruling for the Minneapolis policy.• Affords for more specifically defined options for businesses to implement PSL policies that match their business models, accounting, and payroll systems, or other needs.• Adjusts the maximum accrual provision to more closely match an employee’s average work schedule.• Adds a provision that prohibits an employee from asking for additional shifts and then getting paid for sick leave for those shifts if requested within 3 days.• Adds a reporting requirement so that even after implementation, the council will still be briefed on the policy’s impact on the city budget and on the community at-large.• Adds a provision that allows an employer to be exempt from this policy if they reach agreement with an organization representing their employees on pay and benefits.

These new provisions are intended to tighten-up areas I felt were too undefined, to fix some areas of concern, and to enable employees to organize and develop their own benefits package.

I look forward to discussing this on Tuesday and receiving feedback from the community. Since I will be proposing this for first reading only, we can affirmatively vote for this on Feb. 15, and then handle any legal concerns or amendments before second/third readings at the following council meeting.

Many thanks to the co-sponsors of the original ordinance for bringing this important issue to the dais. I hope they will consider adopting this alternative solution in the spirit of collaboration in which it is intended.